Martin54, please let me complete the quote: "There but for the Grace of God goes God". (Churchill of Stafford Cripps. We, of course, might have an alternative candidate).
Martin54, please let me complete the quote: "There but for the Grace of God goes God". (Churchill of Stafford Cripps. We, of course, might have an alternative candidate).
A fine quote. He might have been a monster but he certainly knew how to mobilize the English language. Which for me segues to Macmillan's "An empty taxi drew up and Attlee got out".
I was playing with the idea of my fate being united with JB2's halfway thru' piously congratulating myself on it not,
Martin54: I was playing with the idea of my fate being united with JB2's halfway thru' piously congratulating myself on it not,
I guess since Adam we've all been in it together, but......"so in Christ will all be made alive!" I hope it's true, because I fear a hell in which existence will be one long interminable tutorial led by our new master with no chance of being bored to a welcome death.
ps. Not sure of the attribution of the Attlee reference, l but it's apposite, nevertheless, to the embarrassment of the author.
Martin54: I was playing with the idea of my fate being united with JB2's halfway thru' piously congratulating myself on it not,
I guess since Adam we've all been in it together, but......"so in Christ will all be made alive!" I hope it's true, because I fear a hell in which existence will be one long interminable tutorial led by our new master with no chance of being bored to a welcome death.
I think your fear of Hell, with James Boswell II as Chief Torturer, may be without foundation, as the Teacher has been thrown overboard for a time, a time, and two times...as Martin54 infers.
@Bishops Finger Hyperbole, or exaggerated language, is often used in the Bible
Sure, but not a single one of the exaggerations listed in that article you linked comes close to the kind of futuristic apocalyptic expectations John and Jesus expressed. Even the one that almost seems to, Matthew 11:28, is a King James mis-translation (see Bible hub) that even conservative translations render "And you, Capernaum, shall you be exalted to heaven...?"
So my answer must be No, that article does not demonstrate that Martin has a valid point.
Doesn't stop Martin making a worthwhile point. His opinion is as valid as yours.
Every one has a valid right to try to make a point, but no one's point is automatically as valid as anyone else's unless that person is willing to back it up with sound, reasonable discussion. The hyperbole article imho did not rise to that standard and thus did not accomplish that.
And by the way, it looks as if I am now attempting to answer @Martin54 regarding my opinion that the the Transfiguration is NOT a fulfillment of Mark 9:1 on the "What to do With an Errant John the Baptizer" thread.
I am trying to correct that last by placing this here, taking it from the Errant John thread, and asking that we now discuss HERE whether Mark 9:1 was fulfilled in the Transfiguration, or in the parousia, or in the day of Pentecost, or in the death of Jesus on the cross, or... or.... or... whatever.
Occam's razor:
The simplest explanation for something is probably the correct one.
The Jesus who said that the Kingdom of God "is near," and that there were some standing in his presence who would "not experience death before they see the Kingdom of God come with power," and that the stars would fall from the sky and the Son of Man would come with the clouds of heaven "before this generation has passed away," and who told the Jerusalem Council who were about to condemn him to death that they would see him "sitting at the right hand of God and coming with the clouds of heaven," and that all the punishment for all the sins committed during all the generations would "fall on this generation"--the Jesus who said all that was expecting it to happen in his generation.
So was John the Baptizer also convinced of the imminence of the fiery wrath he was announcing--John the Baptizer whom Jesus called "a prophet and more than a prophet" and of whom Jesus said "no one ever born was greater than" he was--the Baptizer was expecting it too, and very soon.
So was the apostle Paul who advised the Corinthian believers to give up remarrying and even marrying and devote themselves to spiritual preparation because "the time is short" and "the present world is passing away."
So were all the authors of the writings in the New Testament that were written within the first century or perhaps even the earlier part of the second century.*
__________
*Probably not including: The author of the added-on 21st chapter of the Gospel of John who obviously knew that even the Beloved Disciple had died, and the pseudonymous author of 2nd Peter who knew that that entire generation ("our fathers") had died by the time in which he was writing.
I will now explain on the What to Do With Errant John the Baptizer? thread why I have requested this.
JBII: Occam's razor: The simplest explanation for something is probably the correct one.
Thank you for enlightening us, JBII, as to the meaning of Occam's razor. Otherwise we would have lived in ignorance.
The thought occurs that what constitutes "the simplest explanation" depends on the epistemological foundations of one's understanding, which varies from one cultural context to another.
You could argue the case that Mark 9: 1 was fulfilled at Pentecost. So was the prediction by J the B that Jesus would baptise with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Matthew emphasises in his gospel that Jesus is with us now (Matt 18: 20; 28: 20).
JBII: Every one has a valid right to try to make a point.
I thoroughly agree. My problem with all this 'errant' stuff now sprawling over several threads lies in trying to discover what The Point of it all actually is. After all the erudition I'm forced to ask So What?
JBII: Every one has a valid right to try to make a point.
I thoroughly agree. My problem with all this 'errant' stuff now sprawling over several threads lies in trying to discover what The Point of it all actually is. After all the erudition I'm forced to ask So What?
I think "The Point" is to bring into play various ancient and modern theological interpretations to see how they inform the way we read some scriptures in particular and others more generally. A kind of sprawling look at the authority and inspiration of scripture by reference to various assertions.
The OPs are definitely allowable in Purgatory but if you don't see the point or don't want to play, scroll past and go elsewhere. An option and a privilege I as a Host do not share with you.
For those of us who are Bears of Very Little Brain, the various overlapping threads do all seem to have much the same theme, and this is confusing. I speak for myself - YMMV.
Clarity eventually emerges for those who really want and ask for it. See how BroJames kept pursuing and asking for more clarity on the Errant John thread.
I will return later there and here and be clear. Meanwhile, anyone who really isn't interested or feels they cannot see the point can indeed simply scroll past and go elsewhere.
Clarity eventually emerges for those who really want and ask for it. See how BroJames kept pursuing and asking for more clarity on the Errant John thread.
Others who do exactly the same thing ( @Bishops Finger ) get told to shut up.
A few hours ago, I errantly published the following in response to a rather lengthy post of JBII on the 'errant' John the Baptist thread. Given that the two threads appear so similar, I don't feel particularly apologetic about it. Anyway, I reproduce it here:
So, JBII, having established that Jesus was 'errant', what are the implications? Are you trying to say something profound about the nature of Christ? ISTM you are rather long-windedly telling us what I suspect most of us already hold that Jesus didn't know everything. What's new? What's to discuss?
Ha! I made the same mistake, and put the following on the John the Baptist thread! All these bl**dy 'Errant J....' headings...
Kwesi wrote: »
» show previous quotes
Spot on, Martin54, Spot on.
Martin's pertinent 'And?' reminds me of the controversy surrounding the Reverend Edward Irving (1792-1834), who was kicked out of the Church of Scotland because of his views concerning the 'peccability' (I think that's the word) of Jesus.
Irving firmly believed that, in order to be fully human, Jesus had to have been born with the capacity for sin, as are we all, the difference being that He did not commit any actual sin.
So was Jesus 'Errant', or just constrained by his humanity?
@Martin54 said 'To be fully human is to be errant. And?'. @Kwesi's reply, and mine, follow on.
Sorry about that.
@James Boswell II , never mind the confusion - please answer my question (which I will repeat for your convenience), to wit, was Jesus 'Errant', or just constrained by his humanity?
I've known the quote, "To err is human, to forgive divine," for years. I was surprised to find it's original, Latin, version is, "To err is human, to persist diabolical". It seems that Pope baptised the saying!
Martin's pertinent 'And?' reminds me of the controversy surrounding the Reverend Edward Irving (1792-1834), who was kicked out of the Church of Scotland because of his views concerning the 'peccability' (I think that's the word) of Jesus.
Irving firmly believed that, in order to be fully human, Jesus had to have been born with the capacity for sin, as are we all, the difference being that He did not commit any actual sin.
So was Jesus 'Errant', or just constrained by his humanity?
@Bishops Finger
Well, we don't know, do we? Perhaps some of both?
The Markan Jesus who submitted to the Baptizer's rite of water immersion for the sake of sinners' forgiveness of sins, and who said that "no one is good but God alone," and who could be "amazed" at Nazareth's rejection of him, including the family members in his own home, and could "do no mighty work there because of their lack of faith," though he tried and was at least able to "lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them," and who frequently asked questions as if he did not know the answer ("who touched me", looking around to see who did it, and "what do you want me to do for you?"), and who told the two disciples who wanted to sit enthroned at his right and at his left in his glory that such a thing was not "mine to grant," and who at some time may have thought that Judas would be among those who, he said, would "sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel," and who also said that the coming "of the Son of Man with great power and glory and with the clouds of heaven" would happen "before this generation has passed away," but who also said, "but about the day or the hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father," and...and...and...
---that Jesus may have regarded himself as somewhat limited in some or many ways...
Notice that I here gave @Bishops Finger a fulsome answer to his question and he never so much as said Thank You or replied in any way. That is just one more reason I am getting to the point where I think I shall stop answering him at all, for imho he only wants to be obscurantist. I think I have a right to make that decision, and will endure any criticism I may get for making it.
Comments
Martin54, please let me complete the quote: "There but for the Grace of God goes God". (Churchill of Stafford Cripps. We, of course, might have an alternative candidate).
A fine quote. He might have been a monster but he certainly knew how to mobilize the English language. Which for me segues to Macmillan's "An empty taxi drew up and Attlee got out".
I was playing with the idea of my fate being united with JB2's halfway thru' piously congratulating myself on it not,
I guess since Adam we've all been in it together, but......"so in Christ will all be made alive!" I hope it's true, because I fear a hell in which existence will be one long interminable tutorial led by our new master with no chance of being bored to a welcome death.
ps. Not sure of the attribution of the Attlee reference, l but it's apposite, nevertheless, to the embarrassment of the author.
I think your fear of Hell, with James Boswell II as Chief Torturer, may be without foundation, as the Teacher has been thrown overboard for a time, a time, and two times...as Martin54 infers.
Whichever it was, and at a bit of a tangent, it was an unpleasant slur on a man who'd been an excellent Deputy PM for much of WW II.
It's more complicated than that.
Churchill might have been great, but Atlee was definitely good.
I couldn't say, but this thread seems to be missing its Owner.
Churchill, and Attlee, were both Errant, in various ways, but the post-WW2 Attlee government achieved a great deal of good things, IMHO.
Every one has a valid right to try to make a point, but no one's point is automatically as valid as anyone else's unless that person is willing to back it up with sound, reasonable discussion. The hyperbole article imho did not rise to that standard and thus did not accomplish that.
And by the way, it looks as if I am now attempting to answer @Martin54 regarding my opinion that the the Transfiguration is NOT a fulfillment of Mark 9:1 on the "What to do With an Errant John the Baptizer" thread.
Occam's razor:
The simplest explanation for something is probably the correct one.
The Jesus who said that the Kingdom of God "is near," and that there were some standing in his presence who would "not experience death before they see the Kingdom of God come with power," and that the stars would fall from the sky and the Son of Man would come with the clouds of heaven "before this generation has passed away," and who told the Jerusalem Council who were about to condemn him to death that they would see him "sitting at the right hand of God and coming with the clouds of heaven," and that all the punishment for all the sins committed during all the generations would "fall on this generation"--the Jesus who said all that was expecting it to happen in his generation.
So was John the Baptizer also convinced of the imminence of the fiery wrath he was announcing--John the Baptizer whom Jesus called "a prophet and more than a prophet" and of whom Jesus said "no one ever born was greater than" he was--the Baptizer was expecting it too, and very soon.
So was the apostle Paul who advised the Corinthian believers to give up remarrying and even marrying and devote themselves to spiritual preparation because "the time is short" and "the present world is passing away."
So were all the authors of the writings in the New Testament that were written within the first century or perhaps even the earlier part of the second century.*
__________
*Probably not including: The author of the added-on 21st chapter of the Gospel of John who obviously knew that even the Beloved Disciple had died, and the pseudonymous author of 2nd Peter who knew that that entire generation ("our fathers") had died by the time in which he was writing.
I will now explain on the What to Do With Errant John the Baptizer? thread why I have requested this.
Thank you for enlightening us, JBII, as to the meaning of Occam's razor. Otherwise we would have lived in ignorance.
The thought occurs that what constitutes "the simplest explanation" depends on the epistemological foundations of one's understanding, which varies from one cultural context to another.
I thoroughly agree. My problem with all this 'errant' stuff now sprawling over several threads lies in trying to discover what The Point of it all actually is. After all the erudition I'm forced to ask So What?
I think "The Point" is to bring into play various ancient and modern theological interpretations to see how they inform the way we read some scriptures in particular and others more generally. A kind of sprawling look at the authority and inspiration of scripture by reference to various assertions.
The OPs are definitely allowable in Purgatory but if you don't see the point or don't want to play, scroll past and go elsewhere. An option and a privilege I as a Host do not share with you.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
IOW, keep it simpler!
I will return later there and here and be clear. Meanwhile, anyone who really isn't interested or feels they cannot see the point can indeed simply scroll past and go elsewhere.
The to-ing and fro-ing is making my head ache.
So all is well. I've never been called a 'raging wolf' before...
And a memorable turn of phrase which I would see as an original saying of the Historical Jesus who told such striking parables.
Our Lord certainly had a way with words, no?
So, JBII, having established that Jesus was 'errant', what are the implications? Are you trying to say something profound about the nature of Christ? ISTM you are rather long-windedly telling us what I suspect most of us already hold that Jesus didn't know everything. What's new? What's to discuss?
Kwesi wrote: »
» show previous quotes
Spot on, Martin54, Spot on.
Martin's pertinent 'And?' reminds me of the controversy surrounding the Reverend Edward Irving (1792-1834), who was kicked out of the Church of Scotland because of his views concerning the 'peccability' (I think that's the word) of Jesus.
Irving firmly believed that, in order to be fully human, Jesus had to have been born with the capacity for sin, as are we all, the difference being that He did not commit any actual sin.
So was Jesus 'Errant', or just constrained by his humanity?
@Martin54 said 'To be fully human is to be errant. And?'. @Kwesi's reply, and mine, follow on.
Sorry about that.
@James Boswell II , never mind the confusion - please answer my question (which I will repeat for your convenience), to wit, was Jesus 'Errant', or just constrained by his humanity?
@Bishops Finger
Well, we don't know, do we? Perhaps some of both?
The Markan Jesus who submitted to the Baptizer's rite of water immersion for the sake of sinners' forgiveness of sins, and who said that "no one is good but God alone," and who could be "amazed" at Nazareth's rejection of him, including the family members in his own home, and could "do no mighty work there because of their lack of faith," though he tried and was at least able to "lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them," and who frequently asked questions as if he did not know the answer ("who touched me", looking around to see who did it, and "what do you want me to do for you?"), and who told the two disciples who wanted to sit enthroned at his right and at his left in his glory that such a thing was not "mine to grant," and who at some time may have thought that Judas would be among those who, he said, would "sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel," and who also said that the coming "of the Son of Man with great power and glory and with the clouds of heaven" would happen "before this generation has passed away," but who also said, "but about the day or the hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father," and...and...and...
---that Jesus may have regarded himself as somewhat limited in some or many ways...
These multiple threads are getting confusing, but, if you don't want to answer me, I don't mind.
Do try to keep up with your own posts, though.